[speechlesstx]

No castles in Indiana...

Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

By Dan Carden [email protected], (317) 637-9078 nwitimes.com | Posted: Friday, May 13, 2011 3:56 pm

INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.

"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."

David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.

...

This is the second major Indiana Supreme Court ruling this week involving police entry into a home.

On Tuesday, the court said police serving a warrant may enter a home without knocking if officers decide circumstances justify it. Prior to that ruling, police serving a warrant would have to obtain a judge's permission to enter without knocking.

A cop can enter your home for ANY reason or NO reason at all in Indiana? That ain't American.

[smoothy]

That's going to end up at the Federal Supreme court for sure.

[Stringer]

Outrageous, terrible.

[tomder55]

Facts and Procedural History
On November 18, 2007, Richard Barnes argued with his wife Mary Barnes as he was moving out of their apartment. During the argument, Mary tried to call her sister but Barnes grabbed the phone from her hand and threw it against the wall. Mary called 911 from her cell phone and informed the dispatcher that Barnes was throwing things around the apartment but that he had not struck her. The 911 dispatch went out as a ―domestic violence in progress.‖
Officer Lenny Reed, the first responder, saw a man leaving an apartment with a bag and began questioning him in the parking lot. Upon identifying the man as Barnes, Reed informed him that officers were responding to a 911 call. Barnes responded that he was getting his things and leaving and that Reed was not needed. Barnes had raised his voice and yelled at Reed, prompting stares from others outside and several warnings from Reed.
Officer Jason Henry arrived on the scene and observed that Barnes was ―very agitated and was yelling.‖ Barnes ―continued to yell, loudly‖ and did not lower his voice until Reed warned that he would be arrested for disorderly conduct. Barnes retorted, ―if you lock me up for Disorderly Conduct, you're going to be sitting right next to me in a jail cell.‖ Mary came onto the parking lot, threw a black duffle bag in Barnes's direction, told him to take the rest of his stuff, and returned to the apartment. Reed and Henry followed Barnes back to the apartment. Mary entered the apartment, followed by Barnes, who then turned around and blocked the doorway. Barnes told the officers that they could not enter the apartment and denied Reed's requests to enter and investigate. Mary did not explicitly invite the officers in, but she told Barnes several times, ―don't do this‖ and ―just let them in.‖ Reed attempted to enter the apartment, and Barnes shoved him against the wall. A struggle ensued, and the officers used a choke hold and a taser to subdue and arrest Barnes. Barnes suffered an adverse reaction to the taser and was taken to the hospital.
Barnes was charged with Class A misdemeanor battery on a police officer, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct, and Class A misdemeanor interference with the reporting of a crime.

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townn...7c31bf.pdf.pdf

Not sure who's apartment it was ,but at very least the home was a joint rental . The wife's comment suggests that she consented to the entry.

However ;these activists judges have turned the law on it's head .

"The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad."

Nonsense. Their ruling should be overturned on that alone ,along with the fact that the jury was barred from hearing his case.

[excon]

Hello Steve:

You think I'm going to say something about you're being FINE with the feds reading your email and listening to your phone calls, so I can't imagine WHY a cop barging into your house would bother you, but I'm not going to.

excon

[smoothy]

We all know they are listening to your phone calls and email ( those burrito stains on the letters give them away)... just not the rest of ours.

Besides... there is a huge difference between your house and communications with your drug dealers and terrorist cell friends.

[Fr_Chuck]

Looking at the case, that Tom listed, ( is that the same was as the OP) there was a loud and argument, there was a 911 call of a domestic violence case.

And in fact in GA and I believe most states now, there is a obligation of the answering officer to a domestic violence call to arrest the person who looks as if they did violence if there is any evidence of violence what so ever.

This was a result of many law suits that happened when the officer did not arrest one of the parties and then they ended up doing serious harm to the other, ( who then sued the police for not arresting them earlier)

And in many departments they have a obligation to do a walk though a home if there is a 911 call coming from it.

So in most states in the case of this domestic, the police would require them to allow them to walk though the house and look for evidence that would be in plain sight ( i.e. broken lamps, holes in walls and so on._

[excon]

We all know they are listening to your phone calls and email ( those burrito stains on the letters give them away).....just not the rest of ours.

Hello again, smoothy:

Even though it's NOT a secret that they're doing it, if you wish to deny it, I'm not going to try to convince you.

excon

[Fr_Chuck]

I guess those large government buildings with all of those large dishes that was built and manned since at least Carters term of office was not ever actually used, till Bush was in office. And now they just merely locked the doors and will auction off the equipment. Honestly, even I know they listen and read emails and search 1000's of web site entries every day.

[smoothy]

Hello again, smoothy:

Even though it's NOT a secret that they're doing it, if you wish to deny it, I'm not going to try to convince you.

excon

Well they DO listen to everyone on the left coast for a very good reason. Just not the rest of us to the right of there. ;)

We don't all communicate with subversives and foreign terrorists. And those are the only ones they listen too. They don't bother with the rest of us.

They would be bored to tears with my phone calls anyway.

[tomder55]

I agree with Fr Chuck . The fact that his wife was begging him to let the cops in makes their entry a 'lawful' one.

What I object to is the dangerously broad wording in the decision .
Again...
"The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad."
An unlawful entry of the police can be legally resisted .

[speechlesstx]

Right, I believe I highlighted that in the OP. The ruling is you don't have the right to resist an unlawful entry. That's just wrong, and I know ex agrees.

[excon]

That's just wrong, and I know ex agrees.

Hello again, Steve:

As usual, I find myself further right than my rightwing friends.. Of course, I agree. In fact, I believe what the Fourth Amendment actually says. I don't parse it when it's politically expedient. I don't deny that it's being violated, because ACKNOWLEDGING it, would be inconvenient...

Smoothy demonstrates the apathy that allows government to DO the very thing you posted about... He WILLINGLY trades his liberty for security and then denies that he did it. Then he complains about it. Once the cops/feds have BREACHED the Fourth Amendment, what's to stop them from invading your homes??

Nothing.

I've said MANY times on these pages, when you look aside as the government violates SOME peoples rights, it's just a matter of time before they come after yours...

So, while I agree with you about the ****ing cops, until you condemn the NSA for SPYING on you, me & smoothy, your complaint rings hollow with me.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Dude, I don't want anyone spying one me. In fact, I hate red light cameras, they don't allow one to face their accuser. I don't like the Google tracks my phone and retains every iota of information they can get from me.

However, I take it as fact that the government controls the airwaves and my transmissions are subject to being intercepted by anyone, not just the government, which is only supposed to be monitoring communications into and out of the US when there is probable cause to believe one of the communicants is a terrorist. So, I act accordingly, I don't call or email al Qaeda.

[excon]

not just the government, which is only supposed to be monitoring communications into and out of the US

Hello again, Steve:

In other words, you TRUST the government. Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon

[NeedKarma]

So, I act accordingly, I don't call or email al Qaeda.

So by that logic the cops won't be bothering you at home right? Therefore the Indiana law is good since only bad people will get visits from the cops and they can do their job properly.

[tomder55]

You still paint a very broad and untrue narrative of the FISA program adopted by the former and current administration. While you claim that everyone is having their communications intercepted ;the fact is that only those in communication with foreigners under suspicion of terrorist or jihadists activities that threatened the US came under this provision.
This power was granted by Congress with the Authorization Act after 9-11 .
"Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States....
....the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

The President has inherent powers in Article II to conduct war . Among those powers is the authority to conduct surveillance of enemy communications and of the communications to and from those he reasonably believes are affiliated with our enemy .
Many circuit court cases have affirmed this power related to FISA and NSA . Haven't heard from SCOTUS yet ;but I think they would agree.

[Fr_Chuck]

I remember the case a few years back here in Atlanta where the police did a raid on a home ( wrong address) the resident there protected his home, and got killed in the process.

And of course that is then the issue at the door, what the owner things is a legal search and what the officer believes is a legal search.

We see here that, I would say most normal people, get their ideas from Perry Mason or Law and Order ( do love those shows) and really have no idea of the law, and we know the police violate those all the time also.

So the issue will be who is right as to the legal search or entry, and if the home owner is wrong, he gets assault charges also.

Then we also go back to many states laws, where you can not use force in merely the protection of property, so even if a robber is in your home and is just stealing the TV, in many states you can not stop them with force.

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

In other words, you TRUST the government. Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

You have never seen me say that.

[smoothy]

You have never seen me say that.

Oh I trust the government... its the politicians and their underlings, flunkies and minions IN the government I can't trust.